________________________________
_________________________________
Sep 10, 2008
Sep 8, 2008
Mosaic -- The First Global Web Browser !!!
Mosaic was the first popular Web browser, and greatly helped spread use and knowledge of the web across the world.
In 1992, Joseph Hardin and Dave Thompson worked at the NCSA (National Center for Supercomputer Applications), a research institute at the University of Illinois. When they heard about Tim Berners-Lee's work, they downloaded the ViolaWWW browser, and then demonstrated the web to NCSA's Software Design Group by connecting to the web server at CERN over the Internet. The group was duly impressed.
Two students from the group, Marc Andreessen and Eric Bina, began work on a browser version for X-Windows on Unix computers, first released as version 0.5 on January 23, 1993. His release message was forwarded to the newsgroups by Berners-Lee six days later, seeding subsequent redistribution and wider awareness. Bina provided expert coding support. Andreessen provided excellent customer support, monitoring the newsgroups continuously to ensure that they knew about and could fix any bugs and make desired enhancements.
A version of Mosaic for the Macintosh was developed by Aleks Totic and released a few months later, making Mosaic the first browser with cross-platform support.
One of the NCSA's missions is to aid scientific research by producing noncommercial software, giving Hardin and Thompson a ready-made vehicle to set up a funded project to develop Mosaic as a free, publicly available browser, managed by Hardin, and with Andreessen as the software lead.
Mosaic built on Berners-Lee's server, and provided support for graphics, sound, and video clips. An early version introduced forms support, enabling many powerful new uses and applications. Innovations with use of bookmarks and history files were added. Mosaic quickly became the most popular web browser, helping accelerate the growth in web use even more.
In August, 1994, NCSA assigned all commercial rights to Mosaic to Spyglass, Inc. Spyglass subsequently licensed their technology to several other companies, including Microsoft for use in Internet Explorer.
The NCSA stopped developing Mosaic in January 1997, since Netscape and Microsoft began to bring large development teams to bear on development of their own browsers.
Sep 6, 2008
Liquid Machines Adds ERM to MS Vista
At the 2008 RSA Conference, Liquid Machines today unveiled Document Control 7.0, a major release of its flagship enterprise rights management (ERM) software. This new release extends Liquid Machines’ ERM solution to the industry’s most current applications, operating systems and computing architectures, while adding a litany of features and benefits for customers in markets such as financial services, manufacturing, chemical and energy, life sciences, legal and government agencies.
Liquid Machines Document Control 7.0 persistently controls access to and usage of electronic files regardless of where they exist without changing the way users work. Built with support for Microsoft Rights Management Services (RMS), customers use Liquid Machines to secure and control their most critical information, including intellectual property, executive and board communications, customer data, and human resources information, while enabling secure collaboration and strict adherence to regulatory compliance.
“With this new release, our customers broaden their information protection globally across the world’s leading applications, operating systems and hardware,” said Michael Ruffolo, Liquid Machines CEO. “With its unprecedented automatic protection and administrative power, global customers will benefit from the new international support, streamlined deployment options, enhanced usability features and flexible management of information policies on Microsoft Vista and Office 2007.”
Vista vs Linux - has the penguin got the power?
Linux versus Windows is the stuff of near endless controversy. Linux lovers trash Windows for being slow, unreliable, insecure and overpriced, whilst Windows bigots accuse Linux of being hard to use and clunky.
Who's right? Is there a middle ground between both lots of feuding fanboys? Fearlessly treading where others fear to follow, I decided to see just how the Linux penguin stacked up against Clippy, Windows' much maligned mascot.
So what's the big deal about both Windows Vista and Linux? Linux is a multitasking, multi-user operating system that has a reputation for rock solid reliability, its price (free or free-ish) is pretty hard to beat.
Where Windows is a closed platform whose code is closely guarded by Microsoft, Linux is open source which means that it is available for free, and anyone can tinker with it. Windows also supports multitasking and whilst it isn't free, it does support a massive amount of hardware and applications, plus it also happens to be dead easy to drive.
Taking all this into account, I began to investigate my test methodologies, starting with my Linux options. This is more complicated than you'd think as there are a gazillion different flavours of Linux, with each version (or distro in Linux parlance) having its own pros and cons. Cutting a long story short, I eventually settled on Open Suse Linux which is backed by Novell and near-idiot proof to install. My test platform was an ageing 1.6Ghz Centrino Acer notebook with 1Gb RAM and a pokey integrated Intel graphics and tiny 60Gb hard drive.
Round 1: Installation/Performance
Setting the Acer to boot from an installation image of Suse I'd burnt to CD, I held my breath and made ready to reach for the fire extinguisher. In the end it turned out that installing Linux turned was a complete non-event.
After answering several simple questions and making a cuppa, The Acer eventually restarted to display the Linux desktop. Everything on my previously slothful Acer not only worked, it worked much faster. System windows literally sprung open, and starting an app didn't result in endless hard drive activity or hour glass pointers. In short Suse looked good and, compared to Windows Vista on my same notebook, ran like greased lightening.
Installing Vista proved equally non-eventful. Popping the Windows Vista CD into my PC and restarting had me answering some basic questions about my PC, time zone etc. Once I'd done this, Vista chugged away, installing in just under 15 minutes. After installing additional drivers for my notebooks hardware, Vista prompted me for an activation code and I was good to go.
Verdict
The installation process for both Windows and Linux was so easy that even I managed to get it right on both counts. The two operating systems found all my PC's hardware and installed the correct drivers (which, given the plain vanilla Acer laptop I was using, wasn't too surprising).
Performance-wise Suse had the edge transforming my ancient Acer to perform significantly faster than it ever had under Vista, making Suse the winner in the installation and performance category.
Vista: Installation 1 Performance 0
Suse: Installation 1 Performance 1
Running score:
Vista 1 Suse 2
Round 2: Adding Hardware
Whilst Suse made it far easier to deal install hardware than with previous Linux versions, this only worked up to a point. Whilst common, garden-variety peripherals were dead easy to get going, installing older and more exotic hardware more often than not turned into a nightmarishly complicated process.
Even if I was able to find a Linux device driver for said exotic peripheral, I usually then found myself needing to manually edit configuration files. For less tech-savvy folk (like my Mum, who once managed to delete the Windows XP recycle bin), engaging in a spot of manual hacking to get older peripherals going is going to make Linux a nonstarter.
Vista, on the other hand, proved more bomb-proof when detecting and installing hardware. Eight times out of 10, Vista simply auto-detected the hardware and prompted me for a driver (or found one automatically). Installing an older flatbed scanner required me to download a Vista driver and fire up the Device Manager to manually install it.
Verdict
On the whole, Windows is still far better to deal with when it comes to installing hardware than Linux. A broader base of supported hardware, near idiot proof plug-and-play installation and access to a centralised device manager makes Vista the clear winner when it comes to adding hardware.
Vista: Adding Hardware 1
Suse: Adding Hardware 0
Running score:
Vista 2 Suse 2
Installing Additional Applications
Adding software to Suse was superficially simple, and could be done using the Package Manager app. Not only does the utility provide a simple point and click method for installing Linux apps, but it'll also let you search online for new applications. Unfortunately, not all applications are available via the Package Manager utility, and installing many of these can see users compiling the application before it is able to be installed.
Adding applications to Windows Vista proved similarly simple in most cases. Downloaded applications tended to self-install once opened, while application CDs tended to auto-run and self-install. In some instances archived applications needed to be decompressed before they could be installed, once again leading to difficulties for beginners.
Verdict
In most instances, installing applications on Windows Vista and Suse Linux was a point-and-click affair. While manually compiling source code to run on Suse or unzipping files to install them on Vista can be a messy process for less computer savvy users, installing apps was mostly a reasonably straightforward process on both operating systems, making this category a tie.
Vista: Installing Apps 1
Suse: Installing Apps 1
Running score:
Vista 3 Suse 3
Multimedia
The default desktop PC install of Suse has a multitude of bundled multimedia applications that proved to be more than ample for all but the most demanding multimedia power users' needs. By default, apps are installed for ripping audio from CDs, playing video clips and managing music collections.
Dealing with growing numbers of digital photos is done through the F-Spot photo management app, but compared to Vista it was frustratingly slow, chugging whilst importing large photo collections (with Vista's Picture Gallery, importing big photo libraries can be done in the background). This said, GIMP (which is a free industrial strength photo editing application) was a one-click install via Package Manager.
Vista's multimedia capabilities are augmented by Windows Media Player which, when compared with earlier versions, is a versatile application for playing music or the odd video clips, and can easily manage large music libraries.
Another nice inclusion is the Windows Media Centre, which transforms PCs into full-blown multimedia AV entertainment systems. Vista also played nice with large digital photo collections. Not only could I add tags to photos, but I could also search for photos using Vista's search function. Vista's only real multimedia weak spot is its rather anaemic paint programme, which lacks nearly all of the functions found in Suse's more powerful GIMP image editor.
Verdict
With GIMP also available for Windows, Vista's superior digital photo management and media centre capabilities meant it won in the multimedia category by a mere whisker's breadth.
Vista: Multimedia 1
Suse: Multimeda 1
Running score:
Vista 4 Suse 4
Conclusions
After spending a month with Vista and Linux I've not only developed a new respect for both operating systems, but have also come to the conclusion that neither will suit everyone and that both have more upsides and downsides than I could ever hope to cover in this write-up.
There's a lot to like about Linux. A near-seamless install combines with a massive pile of pre-installed software to give nearly everything you're likely to need to get up and running out of the box.
Performance-wise, Linux proved to be not only zippy, but also offered fantastic bang per buck value given its free sticker price. Unfortunately, Suse is miles away from being intuitive enough for beginners. This said, if you've got an ageing PC that needs a new lease of life and tinkering with a new Operating System appeals, it's pretty hard to go past one of the available Linux varieties.
Vista, on the other hand, shows just how far Windows has come since the early 90s. PC lockups and the Blue Screen of Death are rapidly becoming quaint memories, and the addition of Windows Media Centre, photo gallery and a slick new search engine makes Vista a great choice. It may cost a bomb compared to Linux, and run slower on older hardware, but it still remains the best choice for non-techie PC purchasers just wanting a hassle-free PC experience.
Final score
Vista - 4
Suse - 4
Sep 4, 2008
Google Chrome (BETA) for Windows
Google Chrome is a browser that combines a minimal design with sophisticated technology to make the web faster, safer, and easier
One box for everything
Type in the address bar and get suggestions for both search and web pages.
Thumbnails of your top sites
Access your favorite pages instantly with lightning speed from any new tab.
Shortcuts for your apps
Get desktop shortcuts to launch your favorite web applications.
Google Chrome extensions: Not yet, but later
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.
One of Firefox's initial claims to fame is the fact that the browser can be extended with a multitude of plug-ins, and even though Microsoft caught up with Internet Explorer, Firefox still has an extension edge over Google's new Chrome Web browser.For now.
"We don't have that in the beta today, but we definitely plan an extension API," or application programming interface, Sundar Pichai, a Google vice president of product management, said at the Chrome launch event here Tuesday. "It is one of the things we will get to next."
Firefox extensions cover a wide swath of abilities, from synchronizing bookmarks to debugging Web site performance to showing detailed exposure data for online photographs. The extensibility has attracted scads of programmers, too, which is strategically important for most computing efforts.
Google, no doubt, envies the Firefox extension assets. But it's hard to imagine the company mustering much enthusiasm for one of the most popular Firefox extensions, AdBlock Plus, which suppresses many advertisements.
Google has a strong focus on giving Web users a good experience--indeed, it said its studies show that users find the text ads placed next to search results an overall improvement. But Google's business depends on advertising, and its $3.1 billion DoubleClick acquisition is geared to give the company strength in just the sort of online display advertisements that AdBlock is designed to counteract.
Extensions shouldn't be confused with a related technology, plug-ins, which includes software such as Sun Microsystems' Java, Microsoft's Silverlight, and Adobe Systems' Flash. Existing plug-ins work in Chrome, Pichai said.
Sep 3, 2008
Will ZoneAlarm ever be available for 64-bit Windows Vista?
ZoneAlarm was at one time the most downloaded piece of software available across all categories, which raises the question- where is the version compatible with 64-bit Windows Vista? The company that produces ZoneAlarm has stated several times that it will be available "in 2008," so what’s the story?
The 64-bit version of Vista includes significant security feature upgrades over the previous 32-bit kernel, which might account for the delay in release of a compatible ZoneAlarm, but the problem mostly lies in the fact that it’s much harder these days for third-party developers to create security software for the 64-bit version, according to BetaNews.
While a version was supposed to be introduced sometime this year, Check Point Software Technologies, which makes ZoneAlarm, has added that it will now be available in "late 2008." Thus far, that’s pretty much the only information being released from the secretive software company. To top it off, Check Point unveiled its latest Zone Alarm Pro 8.0 beta on Monday- without the 64-bit version.
The biggest problem in all of this is the fact that ZoneAlarm is still being sold at retailers advertising that it’s a firewall made for both Windows XP and Vista. While that’s true, and it will work on the 32-bit version of Vista, when users purchase and install ZoneAlarm- they’ll get a message stating that it’s not compatible. A while back this wouldn’t have been a big deal given that most shipped versions of Vista were indeed the 32-bit version, but as PC-makers begin shipping the 64-bit version more and more, ZoneAlarm will see more and more upset users.
ZoneAlarm’s relationship with Vista has had its up and downs since the beginning almost. It was one of many security programs that had difficulty cooperating with even the new 32-bit kernel- and last February, the 32-bit Vista edition found itself defeated by Vista SP1. ZoneAlarm isn’t alone in its trouble with Windows, many security titles have had problems creating software that will work without any problems at all. Maybe Vista has just made the necessary improvements to Vista as everyone had hoped for, and it’s decreasing the need for third-party security software all together.
Read More......Vista adopted faster than XP during same time frame
People in general don’t like anything new that requires getting “used to.” That may be part of the problem with Vista. According to a new article it seems it has been forgotten that XP wasn’t particularly popular when it was first released.
It has been 21 months since Vista was released to the masses but it is already running on 8.8% of enterprise PCs worldwide. Windows XP only had a 6.6% adoption rate 23 months after its released.
According to ComputerWorld and as we are all aware Microsoft has discontinued support for Windows XP on everything except certain UMPC and NetBooks. There are many calls for Windows XP to be reinstated on normal desktops and notebooks.
Michael Cherry, an analyst at Directions on Microsoft in Kirkland, Washington, said,
"The uptake of XP was slower than people remember today and many IT managers labeled XP a consumer-only upgrade.”
When Windows XP was released, Windows 2000 was the standard and users loved it. There was no compelling reason to upgrade to Windows XP. Windows XP was a disaster when it was first released, SP1 addressed a host of bug fixes and SP2 basically remade Windows XP into a new operating system which made it a success. Until SP2, Windows XP was pretty much unloved.
The same case may be true of Vista but it may never get a SP2 of its own. That’s because Windows 7 is due out sometime in late 2010 which Microsoft hopes will sweep Vista under the rug. The company can’t possibly make stability worse, can it?
We’ll see, Microsoft could do so much better if it tried but it has a lot of trouble holding on to talent and that may be part of their (and our) problems right there.
Vista SP1, Windows Server 2008 finalized
Microsoft has wrapped up development of two major products, Windows Server 2008 and the Service Pack 1 update to Windows Vista, CEO Steve Ballmer told financial analysts Monday.
"Both products have released to manufacturing today, which is good news," Ballmer said.
Ballmer highlighted a few big corporate deployments of Vista, including at Continental Airlines, which is in the process of upgrading 10,000 systems.
"We think we are turning the corner in terms of enterprise deployment, and Service Pack 1 will be a huge boon," Ballmer said.
Microsoft will begin distributing Vista SP1 via Windows Update in mid-March, according to a Microsoft blog post on Monday.
Microsoft is due to formally launch Windows Server 2008 on February 27 at an event in Los Angeles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
